4.4 Article

Do men and women differ in proximal small intestinal CYP3A or P-glycoprotein expression?

期刊

DRUG METABOLISM AND DISPOSITION
卷 33, 期 3, 页码 426-433

出版社

AMER SOC PHARMACOLOGY EXPERIMENTAL THERAPEUTICS
DOI: 10.1124/dmd.104.002469

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [RR00046] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM38149] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The higher systemic clearance of some CYP3A4 [ whether also P-glycoprotein (P-gp)] drug substrates in women versus men is attributed in part to a higher hepatic CYP3A4 content in women. This, combined with the general paucity of reported sex differences in the apparent oral clearance of CYP3A4 substrates, suggested a sex-dependent expression of CYP3A4 in the intestine, but in a pattern opposite to that in the liver. Accordingly, duodenal biopsies obtained from healthy men ( n = 46) and women ( n = 45) were analyzed, by Western blot, for relative CYP3A4, as well as for CYP3A5 and P-gp, expression levels. Among all subjects, CYP3A4 and P-gp varied 8- and 10-fold, respectively. CYP3A5, which was readily detected in 27% of these predominantly white individuals, varied 7-fold. For all three proteins, a sex difference was not detected ( p greater than or equal to 0.55). The lack of a difference remained for CYP3A4 and P-gp when the analysis was restricted to white individuals ( n = 74) or to individuals with undetectable CYP3A5. Comparing the 21 premenopausal women ( all were aged < 45 years) with the 43 men aged < 45 years, again no sex differences were detected in CYP3A4 and P-gp. Comparing the pre- with postmenopausal women, mean CYP3A4 content was 20% lower in the postmenopausal individuals ( p = 0.01). The lack of a sex-dependent difference in proximal intestinal CYP3A4 could account, in part, for the lack of reported sex differences in the oral, relative to systemic, clearance of some CYP3A4 substrates. Ramifications of lower intestinal CYP3A4 content in post-versus premenopausal women require further investigation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据